The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-10-22

expressed no opnionl shall not disqualiiy
nm To serve rs u juror in such case, II he
shall, upon oath, state that he believes that
he can fairly and mpartially render yer.
dict therein, in accordance with the law and
evidence, and the court shall be satisfied Of
the truth of such statement.
IL appears in record, said Mr.. Pryor, that
THIS statute was called in qcustion in the
trial court rs rcpuguant To the provisions
both of the federal constitution and the con.
stitution of the State Of Illinois, but the
court affirmed It's constitutionality upon the
authority of decisions of the Illinois su.
premc court, and the latter altcrward sus.
tanned the judgment Mr.. Pryor then read
extracts from the record TO show that among
the statements in the trial court there were
men who admitted they had read rcwspa-
pcrs and formed an opinion with regard TO
the case, and were therefore, partial
Mr. Justice Millcr-Wcrc any of the jurors
shown 10 have read newspaper accounts
formed an opinion, etc. rs you describe?
Mr. Pryor replied that any man was ac
copied rs u juror Notwithstanding the fact
that hc had formed an opinion, Il he thought
that he could return an impartial verdict on
the evidence.
Mr. Justice Millcr-Was any such Juror nc.
ccptcd? Was there any such man in the
juryG
Mr. Pryor-Two of them, your honor, and
one OF them was accepted after the challenges
Of the defense had been exhausted.
Counsel then read again extracts from the
record to show the extent Of the PROPOSES.
sions and prcjudccs of particular juror
and the view taken 10y the court To as his adj
instability. lie was interrupted a second
time by Mr.. Justice Miller who asked
WAS this man actually on the jury
this man referred to In the collOquy which
you have just rcad2'
Mr. Pryor--No, your honor but
MIR. Justice Millcr--1hcn this particular
man was not ON the trial iury2
Mr. Pryor-No, your honor, he was not;
but exactly the same questions were raised
IN the eases OF men who were.
Justice Miller said he nskcd for informa.
tion because IN n case which recently came
before him In Missouri similar objections
were urged toa particular jurur, aud IL cost
him three days study uf the record 10 find
out that the man whose ease was thus en-.
phasizcd in the argument had not actually
been member Of the jury at all
Mr.. Pryor said IL ahundantly appeared In
the record that NJ least two ~ the Jurors
who actually sat IN the trial were persons
having prcposscsSions and prcjudiccs of the
character described. Thus, hy the action
oi the lower court, lac said, the Illinois
statute had been made Ia deprive the ne.
cuscd ~ the right ~ trial by an impartial
jury, had abridged their privileges M citi.
lcns Of the United States, and was about 10
deprive them Of life, etc, without the pro.
cess ~ law.
The chief Justice remarked that the only
| question for this court WIS whether the stat.
ute was constitutional II the court erred In
! its administration IT the statute that was a
| question for the State courts
Mr.. Pryor replied that the action II the
state court was the action of the State. II
the statute was administered unfairly IL was
state action, mud that brought it within the
jurisdiction NJ this court II must be No.
said Mr. Pryor because II State pass "A
seemingly fair statute, and then ignore IL or
administer II unfairly, then the protection
which the fourteenth amendment Il In.
tended Ia give Is denied. 10 try man for
his life by a partial jury II not due proccss
OF law, and never was due process Of law.
Mr.. fryor's second point was that the pcii.
uoncrs had been compelled IN tlc trial court
Ia bc witnesses against themselves
some ~ them were ON the stand, and IN
| spite ~ the protests ~ thcif counsel, the,
were compelled 10 submit a. nn nnrc
strained crusscNamination a. crimi
| nate themselves. Compelling man
~ testify against himself II not duo
proccc ~ law Furthermore, before the ar.
rest the police, without any process of law,
broke open their private desks aud extracted
dcncc, and these letters, gotten without due
process Of law, were used against them.
When the objection wns raised IL was over.
ruled and an exception taken.
The Chief Justi,c=tun YOU point nv tO the
precise exception that was takcn7
Mr Pryor then rad extracts from the rec.
orl covering the seizure II Spies papers
without search warrant aud the use NJ
them against him. aud maintained that this
was virtually compelling him Ia testify
against himself IN violation uf the 9Th
amendment II tho constitution.
The chief Jusiirc=Ducs the record show
IN what way these papsr were procured aud
u~cd7
Mr. Pryor Oh, abundantly.
The Chief Justicc--llnyc YOU printed In
your petition aud parts II the record whcw
this Hppoari
Mr. Pryor No, Viz: but We have references
b. them, aud the rccurl Is here.
IN conclusion. Mr. Pryor said that II was
not necessary 10 refer specifically to the
9th amendment Or Ia the fourteenth amend.
mrni, ar any other particular amendment
~ violated by the Illinois statute aud the
proceedings IN tie State Cuufts lie would
simply gay broadly, that these were qucs-
tions raised under the federal constitution
And now, your honor" be- said. I'VE sub.
init ~ you ON these questions that thcrc "
a federal question raised which entities the
petitioners a. the writ Il crror prayed for q"
AZ the conclusion ~ Mr Pyors speech,
the chief justice held brief whispered con.
sultntiun with several ~ the associate ius.
ticcs, including Field, Miller, Harlan aud
Matthews, aud then said "Nr Pryor, YOU
may have printed at once, II possible, the
parts ~ the r-corl which raise these qucs.
lions. and hand them Ia us this afternoon,
or early tomorrow morning aud on Monday
We will indicate what Is further necessary 10
be- done"
Mr.. Pryor bowed, and all II the counsel
for the anarchists and most " the large al.
dicnce which had assembled, strcnmcd out
the courtroom.